|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
perelandra
Joined: 15 Dec 2009
|
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:11 pm Post subject: grammar question - ordinals + the |
|
|
Hello!
I'm having a bit of a disagreement with my co-teacher. I say that the sentence
"He won first place in the race yesterday"
is correct, while she thinks that it should be
"He won the first place in the race yesterday"
I don't know a lot about grammar rules, or what I should reference to check this particular issue.
Any ideas on how to explain myself to her using some well-documented grammar rules? I've thought of just showing her basic ordinal rules, but I don't think that the mere absence of "the" when they discuss first place, second place, and third place is going to convince her.
Thank you for your time, and sorry to bring up such an elementary issue.
^^ |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lukas
Joined: 22 Aug 2009 Location: Bucheon
|
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 7:34 pm Post subject: Re: grammar question - ordinals + the |
|
|
perelandra wrote: |
Hello!
I'm having a bit of a disagreement with my co-teacher. I say that the sentence
"He won first place in the race yesterday"
is correct, while she thinks that it should be
"He won the first place in the race yesterday"
I don't know a lot about grammar rules, or what I should reference to check this particular issue.
Any ideas on how to explain myself to her using some well-documented grammar rules? I've thought of just showing her basic ordinal rules, but I don't think that the mere absence of "the" when they discuss first place, second place, and third place is going to convince her.
Thank you for your time, and sorry to bring up such an elementary issue.
^^ |
I don't know the grammar specifics, but I would just tell her having "the" next to "first place" simply sounds redundant. Also, did you mention you're the native speaker? lol
If this fails just smile and nod, and let her speak redundantly. I dont think it's that big of a deal |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lichtarbeiter
Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Location: Korea
|
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 8:31 pm Post subject: Re: grammar question - ordinals + the |
|
|
perelandra wrote: |
Hello!
I'm having a bit of a disagreement with my co-teacher. I say that the sentence
"He won first place in the race yesterday"
is correct, while she thinks that it should be
"He won the first place in the race yesterday"
I don't know a lot about grammar rules, or what I should reference to check this particular issue.
Any ideas on how to explain myself to her using some well-documented grammar rules? I've thought of just showing her basic ordinal rules, but I don't think that the mere absence of "the" when they discuss first place, second place, and third place is going to convince her.
Thank you for your time, and sorry to bring up such an elementary issue.
^^ |
Absolutely omit "the." It can't really be explained in terms of grammtatical rules because, as is the case with many nouns, the use of a preceding article is a LEXICAL property, not a grammatical one. The word "place" in this sense does not use a preceding article; simple as that.
Think about why there is no article in the sentence "I'm going to school." There's no grammatical reason why the article is omitted (we have "I'm going to the hostital," "I'm going to the store," "I'm going to the river," etc.). The reason there is no article in front of "school" is because of its lexical property, not grammar.
Your co-teacher is wrong, and there's not much to explain about it... it's just a property of the word. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
The Cosmic Hum

Joined: 09 May 2003 Location: Sonic Space
|
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 9:35 pm Post subject: Re: grammar question - ordinals + the |
|
|
perelandra wrote: |
Hello!
I'm having a bit of a disagreement with my co-teacher. I say that the sentence
"He won first place in the race yesterday"
is correct, while she thinks that it should be
"He won the first place in the race yesterday"
I don't know a lot about grammar rules, or what I should reference to check this particular issue.
Any ideas on how to explain myself to her using some well-documented grammar rules? I've thought of just showing her basic ordinal rules, but I don't think that the mere absence of "the" when they discuss first place, second place, and third place is going to convince her.
Thank you for your time, and sorry to bring up such an elementary issue.
^^ |
"He won the first place in the race yesterday"
This is a fairly complicated grammar structure.
A lot of second language learners having difficulty in dealing with this�and make errors like that mentioned.
In the first place, there are many examples where the article is used.
By giving her some examples (and counter examples), she might be able to understand the reasoning in that type of expression.
He came in first place�not the first place.
He came in last�not the last.
He finished first�not the first.
The confusion comes from:
He won the gold medal.
He was the last to finish.
If you want the specific grammatical reason: When describing an abstract construction in this type of collocation�an article is not used.
He won the gold medal. The gold medal is a physical object.
He was the last to finish�He was the last person to finish. A person is a real entity.
He won first place. First place is an abstract construction and no article is required�or even permitted.
Hope this is useful. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Seoulio

Joined: 02 Jan 2010
|
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 10:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pretty much agree with the last poster.
First place is basically functioning as an adjective.
"he won first place" is a description of his ranking.
As another poster said "he won the first place award" is proper if there is some kind of award for first place, but then you are talking about a noun.
HOwever then it changes again when you are talking about ORDER of things
"He was the first to cross the finish line"
"She was the first one in my class" |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lichtarbeiter
Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Location: Korea
|
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2010 11:20 pm Post subject: Re: grammar question - ordinals + the |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
If you want the specific grammatical reason: When describing an abstract construction in this type of collocation�an article is not used.
He won the gold medal. The gold medal is a physical object.
He was the last to finish�He was the last person to finish. A person is a real entity.
He won first place. First place is an abstract construction and no article is required�or even permitted.
Hope this is useful. |
Your generalization works for the most part with the concrete nouns, except if the noun is non-countable.
Example: "He won money for his first-place finish."
In terms of abstract nouns, there are definitely cases where your generalization does not hold true.
Examples: "He won the respect of his classmates."
"He won the satisfaction of a life-time."
I agree there are observable trends, but not strong enough to be classified as a rule. I think we just need to see this as a case of a specific noun that doesn't use an article. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006 Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 1:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think we could also help to clear it up by thinking of "first" as a determiner, which would obviate the need for an article also. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Thiuda

Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 8:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
daskalos wrote: |
I think we could also help to clear it up by thinking of "first" as a determiner, which would obviate the need for an article also. |
Absolutely. Ordinal numbers are determiners. Determiners head phrases - DPs. There can only be one head per phrase (Det NP). So you can't say things like:
*my the car
*a our classroom
*his the book
No phrase can take two heads:
*to in Wonju
*by from Seoul
*He runs swims bikes in the morning.
*He's driving my car truck. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lichtarbeiter
Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Location: Korea
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thiuda wrote: |
Absolutely. Ordinal numbers are determiners. Determiners head phrases - DPs. There can only be one head per phrase (Det NP). |
Ordinals numbers are adjectives. Whether you want to classify adjectives as determiners is a matter of definition (most modern syntacticians do not), but adjectives behave differently from determiners and do not head DPs. Therefore you will see a sentence like, "He was the first president." |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Thiuda

Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lichtarbeiter wrote: |
Thiuda wrote: |
Absolutely. Ordinal numbers are determiners. Determiners head phrases - DPs. There can only be one head per phrase (Det NP). |
Ordinals numbers are adjectives. Whether you want to classify adjectives as determiners is a matter of definition (most modern syntacticians do not), but adjectives behave differently from determiners and do not head DPs. Therefore you will see a sentence like, "He was the first president." |
I define determiner (D) as the antecedent of a NP that restricts the meaning of the N. There are several types of D: pre-determiners, central determiners and post-determiners.
Pre-determiner: all the people;
Central determiner: (always [+/-definite) a man/the woman
Post-determiner: the many people
Pre-determiners are usually determiners with an association of quantification, while post-determiners are mostly quantifiers with an association of determination.
Ordinal numbers following a central determiner cannot be adjectives, because DP do not take AP as complements, only NP. In X-bar theory, therefore, post-determiners fill the Spec slot. Specifiers are sister phrases to DPs and therefore my original point stands: in the example sentence by the OP, first functions as the head of the DP. In your counter example, first functions as a specifier.
Here is an excellent resource to get you up to speed on the DP hypo.
Who are "most modern syntacticians?" Not Chomsky. Not Newson. Who? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
MattAwesome
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He won first place. 100% |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
perelandra
Joined: 15 Dec 2009
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you all for your responses! I feel more secure on the subject, now - at least enough to have a reasonable talk about it with my co-teacher.
Aside from the utility factor of your replies for me, though, I also find this all really interesting. Now that I know what to look for, I'll certainly try to read up on the terminology and topics that you've mentioned.
(By all means, please keep the discussion going! I'd like to see what else develops.) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
raewon
Joined: 16 Jun 2009
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi,
I asked a similar question last year. Below are the replies that I
received. Hope they don't create any confusion for you.
Joined: 16 Jun 2009 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 10:54 pm Post subject: [grammar ?] won first prize VS. won the first prize
________________________________________
A student asked which sentence is correct:
He is the boy who won first prize in the contest.
He is the boy who won the first prize in the contest.
Personally, I prefer the first - but aren't they both "correct"? Can anyone
confirm this?
Thanks.
Back to top
The Gipkik
Joined: 30 Mar 2009 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:02 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Play around with it. He got the last piece of cake. He got the first piece of cake. She bought the first dress. She bought the last dress. She won the first prize in the contest. She won first prize.
They are both correct. She won first prize has taken on an idiomatic meaning from common usage. The former is correct as a grammatical statement, but the latter has superseded grammatical correctness and functions as a short cut/short form method of ranking. He won first prize, second prize, third prize are all acceptable.
Back to top
ThingsComeAround
Joined: 07 Nov 2008 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:02 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
The article 'the' isn't necessary here.
Both are fine.
Back to top
lifeinkorea
Joined: 24 Jan 2009
Location: Bupyeong, Incheon Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:04 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
I think it has to do with order of things or absence of. In baseball, you can steal second base, but I wouldn't say "the second base". There is only one base being stolen.
For awards and trophies, people can come in first, second, and third place. So we have 3 possible prizes and there is hierarchy.
Back to top
BreakfastInBed
Joined: 16 Oct 2007
Location: Gyeonggi do Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:16 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
Neither is incorrect, however, they mean different things. I think of it as hierarchical versus linear order. "First prize" is the name of the top prize given in a hierarchy of prizes, whereas "the first prize" merely means the first one of however many prizes in a sequence handed out. Although you might win first prize in a competition, the first prize awarded could be third prize.
Back to top
Triban
Joined: 14 Jul 2009 Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:17 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
He won first prize.
There probably isn't a rule for it, but listen to actual people actually speak English. No literate person would say He won the first prize, unless there were multiple prizes being given away and He won the first (of many) prizes.
Back to top
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: sokcho Posted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:39 pm Post subject:
________________________________________
I'd say "won first prize" to mean "came in first."
I might use "won the first prize" if I wanted to emphasize the actual prize itself. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lichtarbeiter
Joined: 15 Nov 2006 Location: Korea
|
Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
I define determiner (D) as the antecedent of a NP that restricts the meaning of the N. There are several types of D: pre-determiners, central determiners and post-determiners.
Pre-determiner: all the people;
Central determiner: (always [+/-definite) a man/the woman
Post-determiner: the many people
Pre-determiners are usually determiners with an association of quantification, while post-determiners are mostly quantifiers with an association of determination. |
My argument (which you will see) is that what you define as post-determiners actually syntactically function as adjectives.
Quote: |
Ordinal numbers following a central determiner cannot be adjectives |
They absolutely can be, and they are.
Quote: |
because DP do not take AP as complements, only NP. |
XPs do not take complements at all. An XP consists of an X' and an optional specifier. Complements are headed by an X'. Perhaps you meant to say D' do not take AP as complements, which is true.
In the case we're talking about, under DP-hypothesis the DP has a D' and zero specifier. The D' has a head D ("the") and a complement NP ("first president"). The AP ("first") is headed by an NP, not vice-versa. So the D' is taking the NP as a complement, not AP.
Quote: |
In X-bar theory, therefore, post-determiners fill the Spec slot. |
What you refer to as post-determiners fill the Comp slot of an N', not the Spec. Under DP-hypo you don't get any specifiers under the DP. Perhaps you're confused with the traditional hypothesis where determiners are specifiers headed by NPs, but even under this model the "post-determiners" would not go in the spec slot but still as a complement under N'.
Quote: |
Specifiers are sister phrases to DPs |
Specifiers can only be sisters of X' not XP, so that's simply not true. A specifier is a daughter of XP.
Quote: |
in the example sentence by the OP, first functions as the head of the DP. |
In the OP's sentence, "He won first place in the race yesterday," there are two possible ways to classify the fuction of first. If you interpret "first" to be an adjective modifying the noun "place", then first functions as an AP as the complement of the N' first place. If you interpret "first place" to be a single nominal concept (like "emergency room"), then first place collectively functions as the head of N'. The head of D' (not DP) is D, and in this case, D is zero (which is why it's not the first place).
My point all along has been that there's clearly a vacant spot under D where the could be inserted, and therefore the absence of the is not something that is syntactically motivated, and therefore you can't explain its absence in terms of a grammtical rule. Its absense is lexically motivated as a property of the term "X place" (in the sense of the results of a race). The term "X place" simply doesn't use a preceding determiner, just like you don't see a preceding determiner in the phrase "I'm going to school" because of the lexical property of the word "school." There isn't much use in analyzing it any more than that; words simply have an ability to behave differently from one another.
Quote: |
In your counter example, first functions as a specifier. |
As I've said, a DP contains no specifiers. In my example, "He was the first president," first once again functions as an AP as the complement of N'. The structure is EXACTLY the same as the previous example. The only difference is that D is no longer zero but is filled by the. This is where your claim of first being a syntactic determiner really falls apart because if it were a determiner you would have to place it in D which is already occupied by the.
Here is a tree diagram to illustrate what I'm talking about: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~gawron/syntax/course_core/lectures/burlap_dp.png
As you can see on the right-most branches, the DP the 12th story (containing a determiner) has the exact same structure as last Tuesday (not containing a determiner). The only difference is that D is filled in the former and is zero in the latter. As you can see, the ordinal is placed as an AP as the complement of N'.
Quote: |
Who are "most modern syntacticians?" Not Chomsky. Not Newson. Who? |
My statement was made with the knowledge that the vast majority of syntactcians advocate X-bar theory, which I think you'll agree with. As I've shown, in X-bar theory an ordinal functions as an adjective. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Thiuda

Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Location: Religion ist f�r Sklaven geschaffen, f�r Wesen ohne Geist.
|
Posted: Wed Jun 23, 2010 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
lichtarbeiter wrote: |
My argument (which you will see) is that what you define as post-determiners actually syntactically function as adjectives. |
Thank you for taking the time to explain your reasoning to me - it clarified this and some other issues for me. I agree with you, ordinals function as adjectives.
Another author made it clear that pre- and post-determiners went out of the window with GB - I had better finish reading Cook and Newson's book on Chomsky's UG pretty quick! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|